You are here: / / Under the Circumstances, One Incident Involving Corporal Punishment Did...

Under the Circumstances, One Incident Involving Corporal Punishment Did Not Demonstrate Neglect

The Second Department affirmed Family Court’s finding that the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) did not demonstrate father had neglected his 14-year-old child by using excessive corporal punishment.  Father had struck the child with a belt when she refused to give him her cell phone:

Parents have a right to use reasonable physical force against a child in order to maintain discipline or to promote the child’s welfare. However, the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect … . The petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence … . Although a single incident of excessive corporal punishment may suffice to support a finding of neglect, there are instances where the record will not support such a finding, even where the parent’s use of physical force was inappropriate … . Under the circumstances presented here, the Family Court correctly found that ACS failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected Anastasia by virtue of his infliction of excessive corporal punishment upon her. ACS failed to establish that the father intended to hurt Anastasia, or that his conduct demonstrated a pattern of excessive corporal punishment … . There was insufficient evidence that Anastasia suffered the requisite impairment of her physical, mental, or emotional well-being to support a finding of neglect … . Given Anastasia’s age, the circumstances under which the altercation occurred, and the isolated nature of the father’s conduct, the court did not err in dismissing the petitions… . Matter of Anastasia L–D, 2014 NY Slip Op 00226, 2nd Dept 1-15-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR; DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTION, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).
CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED.
THE ROLLED UP MAT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF AND WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE CITY AND FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF A POTENTIAL NEGLIGENCE ACTION ARISING FROM A RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL (SECOND DEPT).
MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL, SECOND TRIAL NOT PRECLUDED.
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Motion to Vacate a Conviction Can Be Based Upon a Freestanding Claim of Actual... Constitutionality of Statute Allowing Defective Sentence to Be Remedied by a...